Health care reform: The motives behind the opposing parties

You say reform is needed? Then it must come from the government or it will never happen.

As far as I've seen, no one is saying that reform shouldn't come from the gov't, but that the reform should not include a gov't sponsored public option. There is plenty else the gov't can do, including as you said regulation about pre-existing condition (though there has to be some limit to this, otherwise people won't pay for health care until they get sick, go buy the health care, get treatment, and cancel the next month) and tort reform (which has been very successful in Texas). Also, when you talk about motives, on which side do you mean? On the liberal pro-public-option or conservative anti-public-option? Or is it the motives of everyone? (the latter would be much more difficult to get nailed down)

Paladin, I think you're overreacting a bit there.

No way... he's hitting the nail sharply into the plywood sheets that serve as coffin cover for the UNINSURED.

Back to the op "Pro/Con" gimmick;

Extremely simple -- The human rights to live healthy or die from natural causes. For or against. Fair or illegal. Costly or affordable. Pro or Con.

And why shouldn't the government reform the health care system? Wo else can? The private insurers out of the goodness of their hearts?

This is something I have to continue to remind people, not everyone is against reform, (some are but few) they are against Obama's reform. People here say that out system sucks, most will agree, even Republicans. You all need to get out of your heads the idea that Republicans/Conservatives don't want reform. We never said we don't want reform, we just don't want Obama's reform.

Simply put: Because it's stupid. Spinning euthanasia councelling into a death panel designed to kill grannys and unworthy life just seems too far fetched in these modern times, especially after WW2. But I admit that some might believe this nevertheless and are still intelectually capable of using the internet, so I'll remove that point from the OP.

Well, lets keep in mind that when it comes to spinning things both sides are just as good so let's be fair here. Now, if this whole "kill granny" (which BTW, I think it's an exaggerated comment) thing was not in the bill, please explain why the Senate chose to remove the end-of-life part of the bill? I mean if they thought it was a good thing, why give in? To avoid misinterpretation or is it because they expected people not to get it at all and when faced with the possibility that people figured out their little game they chose to remove it just to avoid the getting caught all together? Talk about something "fishy". This current administration has one hell of an issue getting people to understand anything they say or write. I have lost count as to how many "what he/she really meant" quicker-fixer-upper comments have been done.

But feel free to remove it, my goal was to alow people to have their say just in the same manner you got to have your say. So if you gonna remove it, don't do it on my account, you have the right to express your opinions. I only ask not to disregard others opinions just because you find them "stupid". Calling something stupid does not make your opinion a fact.

Interesting. So you think they'll raise taxes not only high enough to cover the reform cost but even higher, so they get more money for federal projects?

You say that as if that's not something the Gov't does all the time? Do you think they won't do that? Funny you question that considering Democrats are all for raising taxes.The stimulus bills passed, the omnibus bill, etc were passed as being for specific reasons then all of a sudden we find all these very interesting pork add-ons. Even my firefox doesn't have that many add-ons.

Control for control's sake? Or do you mean control over the market via regulations for the sake of ... let's say stability or predictability?

Come on, was my response really that complicated? I didn't write a 1000 page reply written in Senate/Congress language you know. Control, the more the gov't controls the less they have to worry about losing it. Does it really matter what they are controlling?

And frankly I don't understand your last point. Don't you have a democracy where you directly vote for your representatives in the government? How can you say you-the-people don't have control? Or do you simply resent that you-the-other-people currently have control?

I was talking about healthcare not the Gov't system. We don't really have control over our healthcare. What are our current choices? Pay insurance based on what the insurance company offers, get Gov't help depending on what you qualify for or pay up the ying yang out of your own pocket. Where is the control? How come doctors are not fighting for our business like other businesses due? Simple because no matter what price it is we need doctors more than they need us hence no control. As for the Gov't system and us havong control thanks to the Constitution it is the people who have control, but thanks to ignorance it's as if we don't because on average people would rather watch American Idol, Desperate House Wive, House or Deadliest Catch than make it their business to know whats going on around them. The way people vote and act one would think that our only duty as Americans is to vote some stranger into the highest office and then hope he does good.

Charles, why would the goverment want control?

Hmmm, that's a good question. Ask Obama. First the banks (with Bush's help), then the automobile industry, now he wants more energy control and to top it off, he wants to control healthcare. Next thing you know he'll make everyone a Gov't employee.

I thought the only goal of politicians apart from ideological ones was to be reelected, so they hopefully make sound decisions to sway the voters.

well if you think about it, with more control you have less chances of not getting reelected. I am curious though, do you think calling people unAmerican, brownshirts, stupid, mobs, etc is a good way of getting reelected?

The government should set guidelines; it should not, however, offer a plan of its own.

The Federal government is innefficient, i for one do not want a bureaucrat deciding the limits of my health care. I would rather deal with a profit-seeking vampyric corporation, at least i know where that will let me down; rather than the government that may decide halfway through my treatment to stop supporting me. Insurance companies are all or nothing, the government doesn't know where it is going to stop.

I wish the government would create legislation that is concise and clear. First, they release a 1000 page bill that is intimidating to look upon. Then some representatives complain about public "misinformation" regarding a bill that they probably don't understand themselves, while they seem in a rush to pass it. And they wonder why there is mistrust! I think we need reform in Congress before they try to reform anything.

There are several fundamental things that need to be changed that simply aren't addressed, so this (or any other proposal I've heard of) is destined to fail, even if it passes.

I) Heath insurance is no longer technically insurance. Does your homeowner's insurance pay for your kitchen renovation, or a plumber to fix that leaking faucet? How about your auto insurance, does that pay for getting your fuel filter changed? Upkeep and wellness care (vision, dental, physicals, etc) are not properly within the realm of things to be insured for. Catastrophic care, such as the car accident above or major medical issues, are the proper role of insurance.

II) Tort reform. A medical error should not be like winning the lottery. Absent actual criminal negligence, patients really shouldn't have the right to sue - and when they do, juries have no buisiness determining liability. There needs to be someone deciding, but that someone shouldn't be 12 people drafted specifically for their lack of knowledge of the issues.

III) Tort reform, version 2. Class action suits against drug makers need to go. There is no reason a drug company should need to keep a multi-billion dollar safety buffer in case a drug ends up having adverse effects 20 years later. Again, exceptions for fraud getting the drug passed and negligence in manufacture, but after the FDA clears something that should be the end of it.

IV) Federal pressure on other countries for drug prices. Seriously, there is no reason the US should be footing the majority of drug R&D cost, while countries such as Canada barely pay production costs. This would be reduced if point 3 were to be passed, but would still be an issue.

V) Conflict of interest. It should be illegal for the doctor ordering your MRI (or any other test) to have an ownership or profit sharing arrangement with the clinic aministering it. Remove the ass-covering (point 2) and profit motives for ordering unnecessary tests, and bills don't balloon nearly as fast. Even in clinics, most doctors are contractors, not employees, so they're getting paid by the procedure/visit. Tack this on to profit sharing from clinics administering ordered tests and you have far too much room for make-work cost increases.

*Not really part of this list, but does anyone else find this odd about Obama's reform plan? None of the changes will become effective until 2013, after Obama is safely reelected or out of office. Coincidence? Or just highly misleading for the folks that thought he'd be helping them sometime soon?

Monk, thanks, I really enjoyed your post. I enjoy hearing how HC works in other areas of the world. It really helps give perspective on this issue.

For those that read my post, I was refering mostly to what experts from around the world said on an Oprah show. I intend to read the final health care plan before I get specific with my personal opinions about "it".

I guess I'm lucky, cause I have a friend in Sweden whom I'm lucky to get to discuss Health care all the time. Also, a long time friend who's a sherrif, and gets to see inmates get almost total and free health coverage (even dental), while some people he knows "on the outside" have to chose gas money over paying to take their kid to the doctor, or rent money over paying for medication. I myself, thinking myself "fully covered" via health insurance learned the hard way (and almost deadly way) that insurance companies don't have to deny; just delay, to make a profit. Something is very wrong with any system that profits most by not treating sick/injured/dying people.

I truly don't care if it is all state, federal, private, or any combination. You should not have to die or go bankrupt if you get sick/injured in this country. You should not have to fight a greedy insurance company when you are at your very weakest and helpless. The bottom line for me is that the son of a garbage man should get the same care as the son of a banker with any needed public service, which this country does try to acheive with most important services (water, power, fireman, police ect) but not with healthcare/medicines.

And for those attacking me or others, come on, I/they are not calling names, or yelling, or most even taking sides. Just talking and giving opinions and learning. No need to get all rabid from a simple discussion.

Add another one onto your list, true loser pay, lawyer cuts included, legislation. Court costs, lawyer fees, the works. If you're not sure of a case, it should never be brought. The law exists to protect you, not to let you play spin the wheel with your circumstances.

By lawyer cuts, I'm referring to lawyers that go in on contingency, if they're after 40% of the winnings, it's fair that they pay 40% of the bill when they lose. I can hear the screams from here just posting it.

Along with curbing frivolity amonst both the plantiffs and defendants, it would decimate the trial lawyer population, and we really need more burger flippers.

As far as the dates for his changes, that's been true of all the stuff they've been putting in. Cap and trade wasn't set to kick in till after he was out as well. They rigged the stimulus bill to put a bunch of construction jobs into play right before the midterms too. Wonderful politicians, horrible human beings.

Quoting lifekatana,

reply 3

Yeah, because the private companies are sooo effecient. Check the numbers.

USPS losing money but providing a viable service that UPS and Fed-X do better.

AMTRAK losing money with NO competition...

Both are Gov't administrated/owned...

The number of straw men that appear in these threads is amazing.

And the level of sophistication of some - "Your healthcare system sucks" - is awesome.

If you're truly interested, a lot of this water has already run under other bridges (threads) that remain currently active.

if they're after 40% of the winnings, it's fair that they pay 40% of the bill when they lose.

Make it: take 40% if they win, pay 60% if they lose. That might balance it out a bit. I'm a hard case, though - I think it should be strictly loser pays (100%).

Loser pays (both the plaintiff & defendant costs) is the simplest, most common sense tort reform. Wouldn't require any 1000 page document to pull off.

EDIT - sorry psychoak, didn't see yours before clicking 'Submit'.

John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”
President Nixon: “Yeah.”
Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”
President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”
Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”
President Nixon: “All right.”
Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”
President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not to keen on any of these damn medical programs.”
Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”
President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”
Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”
President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”
Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”
President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”
President Nixon: “Not bad.”

The preceding transcription is from the University of Virginia for the clearest possible presentation (pathway discovered by Vickie Travis). Check - February 17, 1971, 5:26 pm - 5:53 pm, Oval Office Conversation 450-23. Look for: tape rmn_e450c.

-This is why insurance companies oppose reform.

Progressives who genuinely believe in reform see a number of health care systems around the world and want to emulate them. Decry the rest of the world's health care all you want, but there's plenty of countries which have a system far superior to ours. It's absurd that dems WANT to raise taxes, because that's political poison. Raising taxes is immensely unpopular and not even liberals like paying them.

Basically most liberals I know simply find our health care system ineffective. Slews of people aren't protected by it and it's frightening to think that your claim might be denied and you and your family could go into bankruptcy when you get sick (and you will eventually if you live long enough).

Thanks psychoak, I knew I forgot one.

VI) Life wrecking penalties for suing and losing. And by life wrecking, I mean your children will never go to college, you will work until you physically can't, no bankrupcy on earth will save you, can't be paid off even if you're Bill Gates scale of wreckage. This should apply in all court cases including criminal cases. In criminal cases, there should be prison time equal to what the defendant would have gotten if convicted.

Although this would be mitigated in large part due to the limitations I placed on points 2 and 3 - I meant then literally. No one should have legal standing to sue unless the person/corporation you are wanting to sue has already been found guilty of fraud or negilgence.

Working on contingency simply needs to be outlawed, and any lawyer who has ever worked for one disbarred. No exceptions.

As far as I've seen, no one is saying that reform shouldn't come from the gov't, but that the reform should not include a gov't sponsored public option. There is plenty else the gov't can do, including as you said regulation about pre-existing condition (though there has to be some limit to this, otherwise people won't pay for health care until they get sick, go buy the health care, get treatment, and cancel the next month) and tort reform

That's the rub. You can't remove restrictions on pre-existing conditions without forcing people to buy health care, and you can't force peope to buy a service from a for-profit corporation, they would be at its mercy if it actually had any (it wouldn't).

If you force these insurance companies to take on people who are gaming the system and only paying for coverage while sick they'll go out of business. I just dont' see any solution here other than a public option.

Tort reform sounds good, but at some point you've gotta answer how much money an thumb or leg or kidney, or chronic nausea, migraines, your life, the life of your child, or anything else a botched medical procedure can leave you with or take away.

Not too long ago I remember the EPA had reduced the calculation of the value of human life and there was quite a bit of outrage. It turned out the value had been based on how much additional pay hazardous jobs offer, and people had been performing those hazardous jobs for less and less (I'm sure with the economy that value has fallen even further). So I guess my question when it comes to tort reform is simple: How much are those things worth? What limiting exact value do people want to establish and how is that number deduced? How will that number scale with inflation and other ecnomic factors?

Can't get rid of contingency, if you do that you screw someone with a genuine case and no money. Contingency has it's place, just not in a lottery system of assholes throwing darts at a board to see if any stick. People don't work for free. After you fix the system, lawyers wont have more money than they know what to do with, and horrible reputations to make up for. Pro-bono case work will be the new unicorn.

Edit:

That's the rub. You can't remove restrictions on pre-existing conditions without forcing people to buy health care, and you can't force peope to buy a service from a for-profit corporation, they would be at its mercy if it actually had any (it wouldn't).

What, you mean like how we're forced to purchase liability insurance on automobiles?

Tort reform sounds good, but at some point you've gotta answer how much money an thumb or leg or kidney, or chronic nausea, migraines, your life, the life of your child, or anything else a botched medical procedure can leave you with or take away.

Actual damages are already calculated based on actual statistics. No one has a problem with a doctor fucking up(actual fuckup, not "there's a chance this operation might kill you" known before hand risk) and paralyzing a construction worker from the waist down having to foot his future employment drawbacks. It's the horseshit extra millions that get tacked on afterwards.

there's plenty of countries which have a system far superior to ours

Pure opinion, decried or otherwise.

That's the rub. You can't remove restrictions on pre-existing conditions without forcing people to buy health care, and you can't force peope to buy a service from a for-profit corporation, they would be at its mercy if it actually had any (it wouldn't).

Some remedial reading. Not all-encompassing, but a start.

VI) Life wrecking penalties for suing and losing. And by life wrecking, I mean your children will never go to college, you will work until you physically can't, no bankrupcy on earth will save you, can't be paid off even if you're Bill Gates scale of wreckage. This should apply in all court cases including criminal cases. In criminal cases, there should be prison time equal to what the defendant would have gotten if convicted.

That is crazy talk. I believe OJ killed his wife and her lover, but he went free, so who should go to jail because of it according to your system? Should it be the state prosecutor or the families of the victims, or perhaps the police men who chased him down the freeway?

What's worse is that you would make organized crime completely unassailable. This idea is batshit insane.

The incompetent prosecutor and judge, the lying cops that faked evidence and failed to document what was actually there? I'd have put those fuckers in jail in a heart beat. A guy that was guilty as sin got off because a prosecutor slandered her own witnesses with impecable records and was too stupid to know that leather shrinks when left soaked in blood in a plastic bag, a judge let the defense ask the same question over and over for hours, and dirty cops were too lazy to work the crime scenes properly, planting evidence to make up for it. At the least the lot of them needed fired, and the cops that planted evidence committed multiple felonies.

I'm guessing you weren't expecting someone to take you seriously though.

Some remedial reading. Not all-encompassing, but a start.

What am I supposed to learn from that article? All I read was a reinforcement of my belief that the insurance companies are merciless. You want to call the mercy charity, that's fine by me, it's just semantics and doesn't contradict what I said at all.

You are an extremist though. The vast majority of people who are opposing health care reform right now are doing so because they believe the system DOES protect anyone who isn't so obstinate that they refuse to help themslves. They're Christians who don't want to see people suffer. You have a much more fatalistic and callous approach. The official party line of the republicans is not "fuck em, we can't afford it." The official line is a lost of posturing about how we can get insurance to the people who don't have it and no plan on how to get us there.

Pure opinion, decried or otherwise.

Honestly find me a respectable authority on the matter then, because everywhere I've looked I've only found numbers on preventable deaths, infant mortality, percentage of population insured, frequency of preventitive care, etc. and we're nowhere near the top.

I trust free markets more than politicians.

The incompetent prosecutor and judge...

A guy that was guilty as sin got off because a prosecutor slandered her own witnesses with impecable records and was too stupid to know that leather shrinks when left soaked in blood in a plastic bag, a judge let the defense ask the same question over and over for hours

You want to jail prosecutors and judges when defendants are declared innocent? What hope would you have of a fair trial if you were falsely accused and if you were acquitted the judge and prosecutors could have their asses thrown in jail?

the lying cops that faked evidence and failed to document what was actually there?

So if a cop botches an investigation or spoils a crime scene because he's new or because he's been doing his job for 15 years and made a mistake he should go to jail? Go ask some police officers what they think of that kind of logic.

the lying cops that faked evidence

dirty cops were too lazy to work the crime scenes properly, planting evidence to make up for it.

At the least the lot of them needed (to be) fired, and the cops that planted evidence committed multiple felonies.

You do know what a felony is right? There already is a law against planting evidence so we don't have to tack it onto a reverse sentence punishing people whenever someone is set free, who would have guessed?

I'm guessing you weren't expecting someone to take you seriously though.

Did you? You act like you didn't realize there was already a law against planting evidence and as though it's a good idea to send judges to jail when people are sent free? You do realize from time to time innocent people stand trial, right?

Quoting Draginol,

reply 47

I trust free markets more than politicians.

Trust it to do what? Give a shit about you? You might be surprised.

Quoting Josef086,

reply 22

EvilTesla-RG writes: Healthcare may need reform, but the government shouldn't be the ones doing the reforming.

I think that about sums it up.

This is very true... the government has a huge list of departments with longterm histories of being poorly managed and should not take on a new MAJOR responsibility. If you have a student in college earning below average grades you don't go signing him up with more classes!

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Health care reform: The motives behind the opposing parties

The personal Cost of Health Care - An international comparison